Chris Weimer

I've been asking him for a while now to show this, but he hasn't. Everything prior is, according to him, fake.

Michael R. Jordan

Do you any any evidence, sir?

mountainman

http://www.ntcanon.org/Bibles_of_Constantine.shtml
and from
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-diocleti...-scripture.htm

we read:

The only problem with the above is the final bit of logic.
The existent canons are revealed only in the literature record
created under the technological supremacy of Constantine.

According to Eusebius, there were existent christians with
existent canons, and from (essentially) the information
presented by Eusebius we are led to place a great deal
of faith in the truth of the inference that there was
any form of christianity in the pre-Nicaean Epoch.

My point is that there exists no evidence for this inference.
It remains just as likely that Constantine created christianity
out of the whole cloth, and perverted the literature in an
attempt to substantiate an earlier priority date for it,
that the day he brought in the patrician level landholders,
and important people of the eastern empire, by summons,
to the Council of Nicea, immediately after becoming supreme.

There is no doubt in my mind that the council attendees
walked out of the council, signatories as Constantine's bishops in
a new and strange reliogion which was to replace the
ancient Hellenic traditions, and were powerful men,
all of them, of their own lands and dioceses overnight.

The question in my mind is whether they walked into the
council knowing anything about the new and strange
religion, other than propaganda earlier (311-324 CE)
to the eastern empire by Constantine.


Pete Brown

Roger Pearse

The post is misleading. Constantine asked Eusebius for 50 bibles for his new city of Constantinople; probably he made the same request to other locations with a good scriptorium (since he would hardly have needed to go so far for copyists otherwise). But to associate this request with issues of canon is gratuitous, and not found in the original sources.

Does anyone know of any fourth century source that associates the idea of a single book with the canon? The technology to make so large a single codex was only then coming into existence, and issues of canonical and non-canonical books long precede this point. During the 4th century most non-trivial texts must have still been in more than one volume or roll, as had always been the case. And did Livy ever exist in a single volume

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Gamera

Like any conspiracy theorist, regardless of the evidence showing his theory to make no sense, mountainman merely encorporates that evidence into the conspiracy, which constantly grows in number and complexity.

At last count, I figure half of Europe had to be in on the conspiracy with Constantine in order to pull it off.

By the way, the answer is no, there is no evidence. There is in fact precious little evidence that Constantine played any role in the counsel's proceedings at all. (But of course that lack of evidence is deemed evidence of a successful conspiracy by mountainman).

Missile hitting the Pentagon anyone?

Ruhan

Roger Pearse's rebuttal is pretty good but you could take another route.

As they are making claim to a positive statement that the Council of Nicea had a role in the canonization of the New Testament, the burden of proof is on them not on you.

It's impossible to prove a negative and as such it's impossible for you to prove that the council had no role in the canonization process even though we have no historical records stating this. The only logical position you can have is to say that we simply have no evidence for it and thus this claim cannot be considered as historically accurate.

I can say that Jesus himself chose which books to include in the NT but then I would have to prove such a bold statement.

Regards,

Ruhan

mountainman

Here is some of the precious little evidence that Constantine
played any role in the counsel's proceedings at all ...


1) Constantine had just become supreme ruler of the east-west empire.
2) Constantine summons attendees to the Council of Nicaea.
3) Constantine enters the meeting after all had taken their place.
4) Constantine addresses the opening of the formalities.
5) Constantine lectures the attendees on harmony.
6) Constantine calls for written opinions from attendees.
7) Constantine burns said written opinions in presence of attendees.
8) Constantine seeks signatories to his creed.
9) Constantine wines and dines attendees for 4 months
10) Constantine gives attendees presents and gifts.
11) Constantine banishes any dissenters (eg: Arius)
12) Constantine follows up the meeting with letters and memos.
13) Constantine and attendees were at all times surrounded at Nicaea
with the same barbarian mercanery troops which had just made him
the supreme emperor of the empire, mafia thug boss of the attendees.


SOURCES:

Rufinus of Aquileia :
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_054.htm

Socrates Scholasticus:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_055.htm

Hermias Sozomen:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_056.htm

Theodoret of Cyrus:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_057.htm

Eusebius of Caesarea:
"Life of the THRICE-BLESSED mafia thug"



Nice try Gamera, but not this time.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Roger Pearse

There is much in this. But I don't know that I would introduce the question of "burden of proof" at all -- in many fora isn't this usually the prelude to something a lot like: "I demand my assertions be accepted without proof while you must run around if you dare to disagree with me"? I always feel that everyone must take responsibility for whatever they say, positive or negative. Arguments about who has the "burden of proof" are pretty unedifying as a rule.

In truth we all just want to know the facts, pro and con. In any such situation I would always want to know what these are.

In this particular case there is no evidence of the canon being decided at Nicaea, which must dispose of the assertion. In general I would want to know the source of any assertion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

The problematic disposition of this stance is that
there is ample evidence to conclude that the book
copied 50 times (at least) by order of Constantine
would not have contained the literature of Livy.

Something was physically bound, and if it was the
bible, then - physically - the canon was bound by
order of the thrice-blessed mafia thug Constantine,
issued to the theological romance novelist Eusebius
Pamphilus of Caesarea.

What else are we to infer
was bound but the canon?



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Ruhan

Hi Roger,

Unless I am mistaken, I believe you just used the formula I described in my earlier post in your last paragraph.

You disposed of the assertion based on the fact that there is no evidence for it. You cannot prove that the Council of Nicea had no role in the canonization of scripture but you are forced to dismiss this claim based on the lack of evidence.

In addition the OP stated that this is in the context of a debate or a discussion and as such the burden of proof does come into play.

How could you prove that the council of Nicea had no role in this process? In my view it would be impossible to prove as any documentation proving this could theoretically have been lost to us. However if you make a positive statement stating that it did indeed have a role, then surely you have to have evidence for it, otherwise you are simply guessing.

Regards,

Ruhan